A simple one
#3
Posted 2010-August-23, 07:14
But if I try 3 ♠, I will reach a lot of bad games, so I would try 2 ♠ too.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#4
Posted 2010-August-23, 07:21
But, since this is not allowed, I will settle for 2♠.
Better to have something in reserve, especially playing with a partner who will stretch to bid game (as everyone does).
#5
Posted 2010-August-23, 08:43
Little Kid, on Aug 23 2010, 07:39 AM, said:
What else?! You left off WTP!
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
#6
Posted 2010-August-23, 09:08
If I had the problem at MPs, my instinct would be still to jump to 3. But I'd probably choose the more normal looking 2♠
#7
Posted 2010-August-23, 09:10
#8
Posted 2010-August-23, 09:20
#9
Posted 2010-August-23, 09:53
Imo one should avoid stretching when inviting at all costs.
Playing 3♠ instead of 2♠ is sizeable loss even without taking into account many too thin games which will be reach after 3♠.
#10
Posted 2010-August-23, 11:46
rogerclee, on Aug 23 2010, 04:20 PM, said:
Why not play Kaplan inversion, as it solves the problem. Then a 1♠ response cannot be more than 4 cards, so the opener with 3 spades can happily rebid 1NT.
Incidentally, I think your quoted range could be extended upwards. A 15 count 4522 ?
#11
Posted 2010-August-23, 12:10
1♥ - 1♠ -
1N = ♦, almost forcing
2♣ = normal
2♦ = 3-card spade raise
With 5332 you have to either raise spades if you have 3 or fake a minor. It's almost always right to raise spades on 3 since you have at worst 4-3 fit with shortness in the 3 and responder can offer the 5-2 if he has a doubleton heart.
This solves:
1) This problem, since 2♠ now shows 4.
2) Many of the bridge-world-hand-of-doom scenarios where you have 3-6 majors since you can bid 2♦ then bid again.
3) 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ is now 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♣
4) You also hide opener's minor shape when he's 35xx and responder has a min GF (esp if playing precision)
at the expense of not being able to play 1NT, but honestly I can't even remember the last time that 1NT was the last making contract after 1♥ - 1♠.
#12
Posted 2010-August-23, 12:20
mikegill, on Aug 23 2010, 12:10 PM, said:
What about the "best" making contract?
#13
Posted 2010-August-23, 14:13
Quote
Yes sometimes at matchpoints 1N will make the same tricks as 2M. Usually you're playing 2M instead, not a minor, so I've found it's usually a wash - sometimes 2M will make an extra trick. Even if it's a small loss I think it's probably worth it. A lot of people will raise to 2♠ on 3 decent spades most of the time anyway, so you're certainly duplicating their results. Yes if you pick up xxx Qxxxx AJT AQ with these methods you'll be unhappy with bidding 2♦, but sometimes partner has 5 spades and you win by playing your 8-card fit instead of 1N.
#14
Posted 2010-August-23, 17:27
rogerclee, on Aug 23 2010, 03:20 PM, said:
try raising with support only, and you will see it differently lol.
#17
Posted 2010-August-23, 21:39
rogerclee, on Aug 23 2010, 09:20 AM, said:
I just want to add this is another problem with playing Flannery; the range of 1H P 1S P 2S is truly ridiculous. It shows anything from a 35(32) 11 count without regard to major suit concentration to a 46(21) 13 count.
#18
Posted 2010-August-24, 11:28
Quote
Americans...
What is ridiculous is that it can be 3-5(3-2). Just bid 1NT wit that, you will find 5-3 fit anyway, wtp ?
Even if you are into business of raising with 3 card support, the problem hand is 3-5-(4-1) not 3-5-3-2.
I think most 14's counts with 4♠ should bid only 2♠ btw. You will just wind up too high too often if you jump around with too weak hands.
The solution to his seems to be really easy:
2♠ = 12-14, four spades
3♠ = 14+ - 16
Some sort of gadget with 17+ (gazilli).
If you refuse to play gadgets then 2♠ is basically 12-14; 3♠ 15-17 and with 18+ you bid game.
#19
Posted 2010-August-24, 19:03
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, how else do you plan to bid the cold slam when partner has ♠K9xxx ♥10x ♦AQx ♣Axx?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Seriously, 2♠ just like the rest of the sane world.
#20
Posted 2010-August-25, 03:03
Foxx, on Aug 25 2010, 02:03 AM, said:
1♥ - 1♠
2♠ - 2NT (relay)
4♣ - ...
Seriously

Help

1♥-1♠
??